Justia Constitutional Law Opinion Summaries

Probate Judge Andrew Bennett denied James Hertz’s application for a license to carry a weapon based on Hertz’s 1994 nolo contendere plea to five felony charges in Florida. Hertz applied for mandamus relief in superior court, alleging the denial violated the state statute and his constitutional right to keep and bear arms. The superior court affirmed. Because Hertz’s nolo contendere plea makes him ineligible for a weapons carry license under Georgia law, and the statute as applied to him does not violate the United States or Georgia Constitutions, the Supreme Court also affirmed. View "Hertz v. Bennett" on Justia Law

Deanna Kipp appealed her convictions and sentences for four counts of felony murder, one count of involuntary manslaughter, two counts of cruelty to children in the first degree, one count of concealing the death of another, and two counts of making false statements in connection with the abuse and resulting death of her 18-month-old daughter, Kaylee, and the abuse of her two other minor daughters, S.K. and A.K. She contended that the jury’s verdicts of felony murder and its verdict of involuntary manslaughter were mutually exclusive, and that the trial court erred in imposing the sentences she received. Finding no merit to her contentions but that there was error in the sentencing, the Supreme Court affirmed Kipp's convictions and remanded the case to the trial court for resentencing. View "Kipp v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Appellant Gregory Johnson was convicted after a jury trial for the malice murder of Carol Kaye Lewis and for other related crimes. He appealed his convictions and the trial court's denial of his motion for new trial in which he raised claims of trial court error and ineffective assistance of trial counsel. Finding no error, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Johnson v. Georgia" on Justia Law

The issue before the Supreme Court in this case concerned the trial court's termination of a family violence permanent protective order (PPO) issued against William Lovell in favor of Lynda Mandt. After a hearing, the trial court entered a written order terminating some aspects of the PPO, while leaving others including a requirement that Lovell stay away from Mandt, in place. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's termination of the PPO. The Supreme Court granted certiorari to determine under what circumstances, if any, a trial court could terminate a permanent protective order pursuant to OCGA 19- 13-4.1 A restrained party who seeks termination of a permanent protective order must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that a material change in circumstances has occurred, such that the resumption of family violence is not likely and justice would be served by termination of the order. In reviewing cases like this one, a court should look to the totality of the circumstances, which may include the present nature of the parties' relationship, proximity of shared residences and any shared parental responsibilities; the restrained party's history of compliance with the protective order and history of violence generally both before and after its issuance; the restrained party's efforts to undergo family violence therapy or similar counseling and rehabilitation; the age and health of the restrained party; any undue hardships suffered as a result of the order; and the existence and nature of any objections the victim has to termination of the protective order. View "Mandt v. Lovell" on Justia Law

Appellant Ellery was convicted of felony murder, aggravated assault, and possession of a firearm during the commission of a crime. He appealed, contending the evidence was insufficient to support the verdict. Finding no error, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Ellery v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Appellant Jessie Ben Mathis was convicted of felony murder, armed robbery, aggravated assault and possession of a weapon during the commission of a crime in connection with the shooting death of Souphoth Thammavongsa. Appellant's motion for new trial was denied, and he appealed that decision and his conviction. Finding no reversible error, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Mathis v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Chaunson McKibbins was tried by jury and convicted of murder, kidnapping with bodily injury, and concealing the death of another. He appealed, contending that the evidence was insufficient to sustain his convictions, that the indictment failed to properly charge kidnapping with bodily injury, that the prosecuting attorney made improper and prejudicial statements in the presence of the jury, and that the trial court erred with respect to certain evidentiary rulings and jury instructions. The Supreme Court found no merit in these claims, and affirmed. View "McKibbins v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Following a jury trial, Corey Blaine Coggins was found guilty of malice murder and felony murder in connection with the stabbing death of Daniel Smith. On appeal Coggins contended, among other things, that the evidence presented at trial was insufficient to support the verdict and that the trial court erred by allowing the State to improperly bolster a witness’ credibility with the introduction of a prior consistent statement. Finding no error, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Coggins v. Georgia" on Justia Law

In November 1995, Levon Burch entered a guilty plea and was convicted of murder, armed robbery, and aggravated assault. More than 16 years later, he filed a motion for leave to bring an out-of-time appeal from his conviction. The trial court found that the issues Burch sought to raise in his out-of-time appeal could not be determined wholly by reference to the record, and for that reason, denied his motion. From that denial, Burch appealed. Finding no error, the Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's decision. View "Burch v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Appellant Douglas Brown was charged with driving under the influence (and other crimes) after he was stopped and arrested by officers at a vehicle checkpoint. Appellant filed a motion to suppress on the ground that the roadblock violated the Fourth Amendment. The trial court granted the motion, and on interlocutory appeal, the Court of Appeals reversed. The issue on appeal to the Supreme Court was whether the Court of Appeals used the correct legal analysis in assessing whether the decision to implement the roadblock was made by supervisory personnel rather than field officers, for a legitimate primary purpose. The Supreme Court rejected appellant's initial argument that the checkpoint was unconstitutional because the officer who authorized it was not a programmatic-level executive. However, the trial court's determination that the officer made the decision while acting as a field officer and not in advance as a supervisor was correct, and the appellate court erred in reversing the trial court on that point. View "Brown v. Georgia" on Justia Law